[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-268911-105":59,"doc-detail-268911-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","the-state-of-tennessees-studentteacher-achievement-ratiostarproject-technical-report1985-1990","THE STATE OF TENNESSEE'S STUDENT/TEACHER ACHIEVEMENT RATIO(STAR)PROJECT TECHNICAL REPORT1985-1990","","Technical report detailing the Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) project implemented in Tennessee from 1985 to 1990. The study provides background and legislative context, describes the within-school design and selection into three conditions, and outlines data collection, instruments, variables, and teacher orientation. Findings include descriptive characteristics, teacher effectiveness, grade-by-grade impacts for kindergarten through third grade, longitudinal analysis, training results, effects on classroom processes, additional subgroup findings, and a cost-effectiveness summary comparing reduced class size versus aides.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-state-of-tennessees-studentteacher-achievement-ratiostarproject-technical-report1985-1990/268911/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-state-of-tennessees-studentteacher-achievement-ratiostarproject-technical-report1985-1990/268911.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Dozel","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-22","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",13,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What is the purpose and scope of the Project STAR technical report for 1985-1990?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The report presents the background, legislation, sample selection, data collection plan, operating guidelines, and overall scope of the STAR project in Tennessee from 1985 to 1990.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How is the study design structured for the STAR conditions?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The report describes a within-school design, the selection of schools and students into three conditions, and modifications in the study design, along with the data collection instruments and key variables for analysis.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What major outcomes are reported regarding class size, training, and cost effectiveness?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"Primary findings cover achievement effects by grade (kindergarten through third grade), classroom process effects, additional subgroup results, and conclusions about reduced class size and training. The report also includes a cost-effectiveness comparison between reducing class size and adding aides.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},268911,1789438924,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},962085662650,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","# THE STATE OF TENNESSEE'S\n\nSTUDENT/TEACHER ACHIEVEMENT RATIO(STAR)PROJECT  \nTECHNICAL REPORT1985-1990  \nPrepared by:  \nTennessee State Department of EducationElizabeth Word,Project STAR Director  \nMemphis State UniversityJohn Johnston  \nTennessee State UniversityHelen Pate Bain  \nB.DeWayne FuftonJayne Boyd Zaharias  \nUniversity of Tennessee,KnoxvilleChares M.AchilesMartha Nannette Lintz  \nVanderbit UniversityJohn FokgerCarolyn Breda  \n# TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n## Item\n\nI.BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE  \nA.Background  \nB.Legislation  \nC.Background on Class Size  \nD.Organization to Conduct the Study  \nE.Questions to be Answered by the Demonstration and Study  \nF.Sample Selection  \nG.Project Schools and Statewide Averages  \nH.Data Collection Plan and Data Base  \nI.General Operating Guidelines  \nJ.Teacher Orientation  \nK.The Advisory Committee and Extemal Assistance  \nL.Scope of Project STAR  \n## II.STUDY DESIGN\n\nA.Introduction  \nB.Choice of Within-School Design  \nC.Selection into the Three Conditions  \nD.Modifications in Study Design  \nE.Data Collection Instruments  \nF.General Description of Key Variables for Analysis  \nG.Methodology (Primary Analysis)  \n## Ⅲ.DESCRIPTIVE DATA AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS\n\nA.Descriptive Charactenistics  \nB.Teacher Effectiveness  \n## IV.PRIMARY FINDINGS\n\nA.Introduction  \nB.Kindergarten  \nC.First Grade  \nD.Second Grade  \nE.Third Grade  \nF.Estimates of the Magnitudes of the Differences(Grades K,J,2,3)  \nV.THE LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS  \nVI.TRAINING  \nA.Introduction  \nB.Project STAR Legislation  \nC.Background on Training  \nD.Results  \n11L  \n233744445o7386100  \n2  \n2  \n3  \n5  \n6  \n8  \n8  \n9  \n9  \n9  \n10  \n10  \n10  \n10  \n11  \n15  \n17  \n19  \n103  \n116  \n116  \n116  \n117  \n120  \nCONTENTS (Continued)  \nItem  \nPage  \nVII.Effects of Class Size on Classroom Processes  \n149  \nA.Teacher Exit Interview149  \nB.Teacher Grouping Practices159  \nC.ParentNolunteer-Teacher Interaction161  \nD.Teacher Problems162  \nE.Effects of Reduced Class Size on Curriculum,instruction,and Teacher-ChildInteractions163  \n## VIII.Additional Findings\n\n164  \nA.Student Socioeconomic Status  \n164  \nB.Sex Differences  \n164  \nC.Race  \n166  \nD.Grade Retention in Project STAR  \n169  \nE.Subsidiary Studies  \n172  \n## IX.The Cost Effectiveness of Reducing Class Size or Adding Aides\n\n173  \n## X.Summary\n\n181  \nA.introduction181  \nB.Summary of Achievement Resutts181  \nC.Summary of Non-Cognitive Results186  \nD.Summary of Achievement Results Based on Effect Sizes187  \nE.Small Classes Reduce Grade Retention.191  \nF.Teacher In-service Training Did Not Improve Student Achievement.192  \nG.Summary of the Effect of a Small Class or a Full-time Aide on InstructionalPractices193  \nH.Summary of Cost Effective Results195  \n1.Estimates of the Magnitudes of the Differences(Grades K,1,2,3)J.Conckusions196  \nTABLES  \nTable 1-1Project STAR Expenditures 1985 Through 19903Table 1-2Project STAR Schools by School Type6Table 1-3Teacher Salaries,Per-Pupil Expenditures,and Teacher-Pupil Ratios,StateAverage and Project STAR School Systems Average7Table 1-4Reading and Math Scaled Scores,Stanford Achievement Test Project STAR,Grade 2(Spring 1986),Selected Comparisons8Table Il-1Plan for Distribution of Pupils and Classes in Within-School Design11Table II-2Project STAR Systems,Schools,and Study Designs12TableII-3Number of Schools and Students by Location15Table II-4Analysis of Variance Source Table19TableiI-1Number of Schools by System Size and by Grade23Table III-2STAR Average Daily Attendance(ADA)of Students by Number of Schoolsand by Grade(1986-89)24Table iII-3STAR Average Daily Membership(ADM)of Students by Number of Schoolsand by Grade(1986-89)24  \nCONTENTS(Contlnued)  \nltem  \nTable IⅢ-4Percent of Students on Free/Reduced Lunch by Number of Schools and byGrade,Project STAR  \n25282930  \nNumber of Teachers by School Type,Class Type and Grade  \nTable III-5  \nNumber of Project STAR Teachers by Sex and Class Type  \nTable IⅢI-6  \nNumber of Project STAR Teachers by Race and Class Type  \nTable ⅢI-7  \n","cbCaiaa8MBJ9zQNn","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiaa8MBJ9zQNn","pdf",2414807,71,"English","# I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE\n## A. Background\n## B. Legislation\n## C. Background on Class Size\n## D. Organization to Conduct the Study\n## E. Questions to be Answered by the Demonstration and Study\n## F. Sample Selection\n## G. Project Schools and Statewide Averages\n## H. Data Collection Plan and Data Base\n## I. General Operating Guidelines\n## J. Teacher Orientation\n## K. The Advisory Committee and Extemal Assistance\n## L. Scope of Project STAR\n# II. STUDY DESIGN\n## A. Introduction\n## B. Choice of Within-School Design\n## C. Selection into the Three Conditions\n## D. Modifications in Study Design\n## E. Data Collection Instruments\n## F. General Description of Key Variables for Analysis\n## G. Methodology (Primary Analysis)\n# III. DESCRIPTIVE DATA AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS\n## A. Descriptive Charactenistics\n## B. Teacher Effectiveness\n# IV. PRIMARY FINDINGS\n## A. Introduction\n## B. Kindergarten\n## C. First Grade\n## D. Second Grade\n## E. Third Grade\n## F. Estimates of the Magnitudes of the Differences(Grades K,J,2,3)\n# V. THE LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS\n# VI. TRAINING\n## A. Introduction\n## B. Project STAR Legislation\n## C. Background on Training\n## D. Results\n# VII. Effects of Class Size on Classroom Processes\n## A. Teacher Exit Interview\n## B. Teacher Grouping Practices\n## C. ParentNolunteer-Teacher Interaction\n## D. Teacher Problems\n## E. Effects of Reduced Class Size on Curriculum,instruction,and Teacher-ChildInteractions\n# VIII. Additional Findings\n## A. Student Socioeconomic Status\n## B. Sex Differences\n## C. Race\n## D. Grade Retention in Project STAR\n## E. Subsidiary Studies\n# IX. The Cost Effectiveness of Reducing Class Size or Adding Aides\n# X. Summary\n## A. introduction\n## B. Summary of Achievement Resutts\n## C. Summary of Non-Cognitive Results\n## D. Summary of Achievement Results Based on Effect Sizes\n## E. Small Classes Reduce Grade Retention.\n## F. Teacher In-service Training Did Not Improve Student Achievement.\n## G. Summary of the Effect of a Small Class or a Full-time Aide on InstructionalPractices\n## H. Summary of Cost Effective Results\n## I. Estimates of the Magnitudes of the Differences(Grades K,1,2,3)J.Conckusions","[{\"question\":\"What is the purpose and scope of the Project STAR technical report for 1985-1990?\",\"answer\":\"The report presents the background, legislation, sample selection, data collection plan, operating guidelines, and overall scope of the STAR project in Tennessee from 1985 to 1990.\"},{\"question\":\"How is the study design structured for the STAR conditions?\",\"answer\":\"The report describes a within-school design, the selection of schools and students into three conditions, and modifications in the study design, along with the data collection instruments and key variables for analysis.\"},{\"question\":\"What major outcomes are reported regarding class size, training, and cost effectiveness?\",\"answer\":\"Primary findings cover achievement effects by grade (kindergarten through third grade), classroom process effects, additional subgroup results, and conclusions about reduced class size and training. The report also includes a cost-effectiveness comparison between reducing class size and adding aides.\"}]","THE STATE OF TENNESSEE'S STUDENT/TEACHER ACHIEVEMENT RATIO(STAR)PROJECT TECHNICAL REPORT1985-1990 | PDF",179]